TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 ... ref=denver

The above link is to a detailed story about Magpul, the ammo magazine maker. The company is leaving Colorado within
30 days, due to the Colorado governor signing restrictive magazine capacity laws.

The company is based in Erie, CO, which is just east of Boulder and north of Denver about 30 miles. About 200 jobs will
go to the new state.

A Denver based supplier of theirs may also leave the state. 82 employees will be affected.

There is no hard news about which state Magpul will move to, but the state of Wyoming has been rumored to be the one.

I applaud Magpul for putting their money where their mouth is. They realize that their current governor has sold them down
the river. They are not taking this lying down.

Now if we could get other gunmakers to leave their own "anti" states!

SIA

It will be more than just the 200 jobs which Magpul employs directly. There are something like 1,200 jobs (or some similar figure) of small mom & pop manufacturers to whom Magpul subcontracts, for whom Magpul is either their only customer, or by far their biggest customer. Those business are going to collapse, and those jobs will go away also. Magpul's contributions to the tax base and to the local economies in other ways will go away also, as will the tax base and economic contributions of the business that will die because of Magpul's abandoning Colorado.

Tough decision, but good for Magpul having the huevos to back it up. These kinds of unjust laws cannot stand without consequences. If the politicians want to own the "glory" heaped on them by democrat liars (but I repeat myself) by passing their stupid and unjust laws, then let them also own the consequences of driving tax revenue and jobs out of the state. Let them try and explain that to their voters.

co ag will sue them for leaving and costing jobs......

hope they stand the ground and do move

He can't sue them. They are under no legal obligation to stay. My guess is that, given how firmly Magpul has acted on this issue, if the CO AG tried to pull a stunt like that and he actually won, Magpul would just shut the company down and begin a new corporation out of state, and name it "The Company Formerly Known as "Magpul"".

The Annoyed Man wrote:He can't sue them. They are under no legal obligation to stay. My guess is that, given how firmly Magpul has acted on this issue, if the CO AG tried to pull a stunt like that and he actually won, Magpul would just shut the company down and begin a new corporation out of state, and name it "The Company Formerly Known as "Magpul"".

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:There is no hard news about which state Magpul will move to, but the state of Wyoming has been rumored to be the one.

I can more easily picture them making *that* move, than to go to Texas (unfortunately for us). WY has constitutional carry, has similar beautiful country, climate, not as far to move, traditional Rockies/American West culture, not as far from family & other roots that may be left behind in CO.

Colt might be moving, too.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/21/co ... -amid-gun/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wyoming makes sense like you said. And Magpul can put a sign right across the border that says, "This is how many jobs we gave to Wyoming and this is how much taxes we paid to Wyoming." Stick it CO!

The Annoyed Man wrote:He can't sue them. They are under no legal obligation to stay. My guess is that, given how firmly Magpul has acted on this issue, if the CO AG tried to pull a stunt like that and he actually won, Magpul would just shut the company down and begin a new corporation out of state, and name it "The Former Colorado Company Formerly Known as "Magpul"".

Fixed it.

The Annoyed Man wrote:He can't sue them. They are under no legal obligation to stay. My guess is that, given how firmly Magpul has acted on this issue, if the CO AG tried to pull a stunt like that and he actually won, Magpul would just shut the company down and begin a new corporation out of state, and name it "The Company Formerly Known as "Magpul"".

sorry i was joking
thinking back to poor Boeing getting skewered by the labor relations board

they need to open a factory in all adjoining states to co with big signs

Kudos to Magpul. Now start making more of your pmags, so I can get back to building my stock.

On a related note, Colt is finally considering fleeing Connecticut. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/21/co ... -amid-gun/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) What's taking them so long? They should have left decades ago.

Other companies that need to pick up sticks and come to a free state like TX:
Smith & Wesson: MA
Walther: MA
Ruger: headquartered in NY
Remington: NY
Springfield Armory: IL

What in the heck were they thinking?!?!?!

Other companies that need to pick up sticks and come to a free state like TX:
Smith & Wesson: MA
Walther: MA
Ruger: headquartered in NY
Remington: NY
Springfield Armory: IL

What in the heck were they thinking?!?!?!

Add Kimber to that list.

As far as "what were they thinking" goes, S&W (with Walther), Ruger, and Remington all predate the antigun climates in those states. However, I am surprised that the unionized ones didn't flee south like so many other northern companies that fled to the sunbelt over the last 40-50 years.

Ruger is headquartered in Southport CT, not NY.

Springfield Armory? It is a newer company and I am baffled why they would stick in IL. It would be about a 25 mile move to Iowa. Les Baer made that move.

What was one of the reasons the North won the civil. War? It was more industrialized, it had the major gun factories, other factories and mills. It didn't have the smarter people, it had the major industries.

This is what happens when the hippies move to your state.

95 percent of voters agree that people with "serious mental health problems" should be prevented from owning a gun.
80 percent of voters agree that judges should be able to order someone who is "convicted of domestic violence or given a restraining order" to surrender their guns to the court.
80 percent of voters agree that all private gun sales should go through a licensed dealer and be subject to a background check.
65 percent of voters agree that guns should be banned on college and university campuses.
61 percent of voters agree that the sale and possession of semi-automatic guns and assault rifles should be banned.
61 percent of voters agree that the sale and possession of high-capacity ammunition clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before reloading, should be banned.

Sounds like the Dems have plenty of support for their draconian laws.

baldeagle wrote:This is what happens when the hippies move to your state.

95 percent of voters agree that people with "serious mental health problems" should be prevented from owning a gun.
80 percent of voters agree that judges should be able to order someone who is "convicted of domestic violence or given a restraining order" to surrender their guns to the court.
80 percent of voters agree that all private gun sales should go through a licensed dealer and be subject to a background check.
65 percent of voters agree that guns should be banned on college and university campuses.
61 percent of voters agree that the sale and possession of semi-automatic guns and assault rifles should be banned.
61 percent of voters agree that the sale and possession of high-capacity ammunition clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before reloading, should be banned.

Sounds like the Dems have plenty of support for their draconian laws.

I don't believe their polls until I see the demographics. I do not believe that it is a true cross-section of the population.